Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
over the years, i spent most of my career in cia trying to forecast what people would do, and how things would turn out and when it comes to saying what is going to happen, we have every reason to be very modest about our abilities to do that. because the truth is, we can monitor weapons, we can monitor movements of military forces, but the decision to use them or how to use them is something that often is a mystery to us. and sometimes because the protagonist himself doesn't know walt he is going to do. so i have -- i became very cautious and, again, it may have been one of the reasons i decided to leave, i became very cautious about the use of military force, because the consequences are so unpredictable. maybe it will be a small reaction, but maybe not. and then you are back in another big war. we saw two swift, successful military missions for regime change in iraq and afghanistan. we all know what came after that. we took out qaddafi, the rebels in liberty i can't took out qaddafi with the help of western air support. things aren't looking that great in libya right now, so wi
points. officials tell the journal the cia made the call to remove the al qaeda references. why? to protect intelligence sources. according to the reporting of the journal, the fbi agreed with that decision but some state department officials said it made the talking points too vegas. now fox news has learned the director of national intelligence plans to give a classified briefing on benghazi tomorrow for the entire house of representatives. for the rest of the story, catherine herridge with us from washington now. catherine? >> shepard, tomorrow on capitol hill, a second round of closed classified briefings for all the members of the house of representatives, nation's top intelligence officer among others. lawmakers want more definitive information on the level of premeditation by the terrorists and how early it was known. >> the question is how much planning went into this? was it months in the works? was it cobbled together quickly within a matter of a few hours? it makes a great difference in terms of the responsibility as well as the vulnerability of our facilities elsewhe
questions as well. i would point to the issue over the cia talking points and these decisions to make changes that critics say really minimize the role of al qaeda and affiliated groups in this attack, martha. martha: certainly got the right people in the room to answer a lot of those questions. we'll see if they get anywhere conclusive today. you know one of the big issues that has been raised by all of this of course, catherine, is our intelligence on the ground in benghazi. what are we learning about the future of that annex and our presence there? >> reporter: fox news has learned that the decision to close the cia annex and to destroy all of the classified information and move out the classified communications equipment came within 12 hours, 12 hours of the at dark -- attack on the consulate itself and early morning september 12th, by 8:00 local time, effectively the cia operation in benghazi was shuttered. all the classified information was moved or burned as well as the equipment and this was a decision fox was told was made on the ground. then there was notification to washing
is on an advisory board at the state department and one at the cia. so clearly, this man has got important matters on his desk. how exposed could we be if the chinese have access to all of his writings? >> very exposed. and this is nothing new. if you take a look at a typical burglar and he wants to break into a yard and has this hardened lock on a fence that he cannot cut through, what is he going to do? he's going to cut the chain. we're not going to go after a facility that spends billions of our tax dollars on securing their networks. we're going to go after somebody who works outside, somebody who has access to internal resources. it's called a u-turn attack. what they do is they find that weak link such as a home computer or a personal computer belonging to a former admiral or cia agent, and they attack that. they get access to that, and then they use their vpn connection inbound to get access to the same resources he would have access to or she would have access to based on their security level. megyn: because we're hearing more and more of this. they say the fbi's looking into -- it's not
is going to debunk that. and i know every expert i've talked to in the fbi, and in the cia, glenn carl for example told me none of this torture worked. none of this enhanced interrogation worked. it did not, as cheney has alleged, lead to the killing of bin laden. it was counterproductive. it was damaging to our reputation and he's still lying about it. >> we haven't heard the last of that, have we? >> no, we haven't. >> how aggressive do you think lawmakers ought to be with that report? >> i think it ought to be at least portions of it, just like i thought the 9/11 commission portions of it should be made public. if we're not going to hold people accountable, we should at least let the american people know what was done in their name that basically constituted war crimes. >> getting back to cheney for a moment, his vision of international intervention, do you think that that really illustrates where the republican party is? >> i think the republican party is lost right now. wandering in the desert, as it were.
of terrorist ties. phillip mudd, a former cia and fbi counterterrorism official, says there's a huge concern over who to trust with chemical weapons. >> when you've got roughly 10% of the opposition in the. >>>s u.s. government is declaring are terrorist group you're going to be concerned. in any case like this, there's a lot of risk. >> reporter: but mudd says it's still better to train the rebels on how to handle those materials than to do nothing. and leonard specter says the u.s. and its allies are likely screening the individuals who are being trained very carefully, wofrl, at least that's the hope. >> despite all that, there's still a potential for these chemical weapons getting into the wrong hands. despite what the u.s. is trying to do. >> reporter: phillip mudd says if the syrian regime loses control of these weapons, that's a huge worry. if they fall into the hands of others who are not trusted by the u.s. or its allies they could float around the border to iraq or other potentially dangerous places where they don't have control over these things. if assad loses control of these th
a cia spy drone it captured back in 2011. that country's revolutionary guard has previously said that it recovered some information from the unmanned craft, but this time technicians say they have broken through all of its encryption, revealing that the drone had not carried out missions over any nuclear facilities before it went down. >>> well, north korea is extending the launch period for a controversial long-range rocket by a full week. its top scientists blame what they call a technical problem. north korea's government insists the rocket launch is part of a plan to put a satellite into orbit. however, the u.s. and our allies say the launch is really cover for testing missile technology that could be used to hit as far away as america. david piper live in bangkok, thailand, with the very latest. david? >> reporter: hi, megyn, yes. that famous phrase, houston, we've got a problem, well, the normally-secretive north korea has announced they've got a problem also with their planned missile launch over the next few weeks. now, what the spokesman for north korea said was that the
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)